psychologywikiaorg-20200213-history
Generation effect (learning)
The generation effect refers to the robust finding that information will be better remembered if it is generated rather than simply read. For example, you are more like to remember the word "orangutan" if you generate it from the fragment "or_ng_ta_" than if you simply see the word in its entirety. Generation Effect in Experiments The generation effect is usually achieved in cognitive psychology experiments where participants are asked to generate words from word fragments. It has also been demonstrated using a variety of other materials, such as when generating a word after being presented with its antonym or synonym, generating keywords in paragraphs, pictures, and arithmetic problems. In addition, the generation effect has been found in studies using free recall, cued recall, and recognition tests. Causes Lexical activation hypothesis Researchers have struggled to account for why generated information is better recalled than read information, but no single explanation has been sufficient. According to the lexical activation hypothesis, the participant must search his or her semantic memory during the process of generation. The search activates semantic features in memory that are related to the target item. During the retrieval of the target item at testing, the semantic features serve as retrieval cues and aid in the recall of the target item. Procedural account The procedural account, which builds upon the lexical activation hypothesis, argues that people are more likely to engage in particular cognitive procedures during the encoding of items when generating than when reading. The process of generation induces people to connect the item to information in memory (unlike the lexical activation hypothesis, the information in memory does not necessarily reside in the lexicon). The generation effect occurs if the procedures used during encoding are reinstated during the memory test. Multifactor transfer-appropriate processing account According to the multifactor transfer-appropriate processing account, the generation task forces participants to focus their processing on the type of information needed to solve the generation task. When a later test is sensitive to the same type of information, a generation effect occurs. When, however, there is not a match between the type of information processed to solve the generation task and the type of information needed to do well on a later test, the generation effect does not occur. For example, a participant that is required to generate same-category targets from distinctive semantic cues (e.g., PURR-C_T, SADDLE-H_RS_) is likely to notice similarities between the targets (e.g., they are all animals). This type of manipulation would promote whole-list relational processing, which may enhance generation performance on a free recall test. Other manipulations can emphasize cue-target processing, thus helping generation performance on cued recall tests. Limitations By manipulating materials or instructions, experimenters have reduced or eliminated the generation effect. This suggests that there are instances in which reading can have the same memorial gains as generating. For example, when participants are given instructions to process information in a manner that was similar to the processing performed by the participants in the generate condition, the generation advantage between the groups was eliminated. In another study, participants who used a processing strategy (imagery) that was more effective than reading performed just as well as those who generated. Although the generation effect is a robust finding, there are some studies that have found no memorial benefits of generating compared to reading. For example, one study did not find the generation effect when they used legal nonwords and found a reduced generation effect when they used material unfamiliar to the participants. They concluded that generating may have limited effectiveness when applied to new or unfamiliar material. This warrants some concern because if generation is to be incorporated into educational practices such as classroom teaching, we would want it to help students learn new material. It is possible that generation may cause a trade-off in encoding item information and associative information. The processing of item-specific features of the target item may be enhanced when generating, and generating may also enhance the processing of cue-target relation. But, encoding requires limited-capacity resources, so the better encoding of one type of information may occur at a cost to the encoding of other information. This also has implications for applying generation to educational practices because even if generation improves the recall of specific words, the memory for the contextual information surrounding those words may suffer. Practical applications The generation effect appears promising as a strategy for learning, particularly for remembering educational material. Currently, researchers at UCLA and UC Berkeley are investigating ways to incorporate learning strategies such as the generation effect, as well as other "desirable difficulties", into the classroom http://iddeas.psych.ucla.edu. There are some ways that you could use generation to aid in memory retention. Here are some examples: * Read a section of your book. Then, close the book and generate (and answer) questions about what you just read. * If there are review questions at the end of a chapter, answer those questions without looking back at the pages. * Use flashcards to test yourself. * If you are an educator (or if you want write a practice test for a friend), create tests that require fill-in-the-blank, short answer, or essay responses rather than multiple-choice responses. See also * List of memory biases * Cognitive processes References *Baddeley, A., Emslie, H., Kolodny, J., & Duncan, J. (1998). Random generation and the executive control of working memory: The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology Vol 51A(4) Nov 1998, 819-852. *Barrett, A. M., Crucian, G. P., Schwartz, R. L., & Heilman, K. M. (2000). Testing memory for self-generated items in dementia: Method makes a difference: Neurology Vol 54(6) Mar 2000, 1258-1264. *Basi, R. K., Thomas, M. H., & Wang, A. Y. (1997). Bilingual generation effect: Variations in participant bilingual type and list type: Journal of General Psychology Vol 124(2) Apr 1997, 216-222. *Begg, I., Vinski, E., Frankovich, L., & Holgate, B. (1991). Generating makes words memorable, but so does effective reading: Memory & Cognition Vol 19(5) Sep 1991, 487-497. *Bertsch, S., Pesta, B. J., Wiscott, R., & McDaniel, M. A. (2007). The generation effect: A meta-analytic review: Memory & Cognition Vol 35(2) Mar 2007, 201-210. *Bodner, G. E., Masson, M. E. J., & Caldwell, J. I. (2000). Evidence for a generate-recognize model of episodic influences on word-stem completion: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition Vol 26(2) Mar 2000, 267-293. *Bodner, G. E., Masson, M. E. J., & Caldwell, J. I. (2001). Correction to Bodner et al. (2000): Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition Vol 27(5) Sep 2001, 1320. *Boyle, J. R., & Weishaar, M. (1997). The effects of expert-generated versus student-generated cognitive organizers on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities: Learning Disabilities Research & Practice Vol 12(4) Fal 1997, 228-235. *Brown, A. S., & Mitchell, D. B. (1991). Age differences in retrieval consistency and response dominance: Journals of Gerontology Vol 46(6) Nov 1991, P332-P339. *Brown, J. C., Niinikoski, J., & Duke, L. W. (1993). Generation effect and frequency judgment in young and elderly adults: Experimental Aging Research Vol 19(2) Apr-Jun 1993, 147-164. *Burns, D. J. (1990). The generation effect: A test between single- and multifactor theories: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition Vol 16(6) Nov 1990, 1060-1067. *Burns, D. J. (1992). The consequences of generation: Journal of Memory and Language Vol 31(5) Oct 1992, 615-633. *Burns, D. J. (1996). The item-order distinction and the generation effect: The importance of order information in long-term memory: American Journal of Psychology 109(4) Win 1996, 567-580. *Burt, J. S., Walker, M. B., Humphreys, M. S., & Tehan, G. (1993). Associative priming in perceptual identification: Effects of prime-processing requirements: Memory & Cognition Vol 21(1) Jan 1993, 125-137. *Buyer, L. S., & Dominowski, R. L. (1989). Retention of solutions: It is better to give than to receive: American Journal of Psychology Vol 102(3) Fal 1989, 353-363. *Calvert, S. L. (1991). Presentational features for young children's production and recall of information: Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology Vol 12(3) Jul-Sep 1991, 367-378. *Carew, T. G., Lamar, M., Cloud, B. S., Grossman, M., & Libon, D. J. (1997). Impairment in category fluency in ischemic vascular dementia: Neuropsychology Vol 11(3) Jul 1997, 400-412. *Carroll, M., & Nelson, T. O. (1993). Failure to obtain a generation effect during naturalistic learning: Memory & Cognition Vol 21(3) May 1993, 361-366. *Casteel, M. A., & Simpson, G. B. (1991). Textual coherence and the development of inferential generation skills: Journal of Research in Reading Vol 14(2) Sep 1991, 116-129. *Chechile, R. A., & Soraci, S. A., Jr. (1999). Evidence for a multiple-process account of the generation effect: Memory Vol 7(4) Jul 1999, 483-508. *Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M.-H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding: Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal Vol 18(3) Jul-Sep 1994, 439-477. *Clark, S. E. (1995). The generation effect and the modeling of associations in memory: Memory & Cognition Vol 23(4) Jul 1995, 442-455. *Cohen, S., Tsai, F., & Chechile, R. (1995). A model for assessing student interaction with educational software: Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers Vol 27(2) May 1995, 251-256. *Condon, B., Montaldi, D., Wilson, J. T. L., & Hadley, D. (1997). The relation between MRI neuroactivation changes and response rate on a word-fluency task: Applied Neuropsychology Vol 4(4) 1997, 201-207. *Daneman, M., & Stainton, M. (1993). The generation effect in reading and proofreading: Is it easier or harder to detect errors in one's own writing? : Reading and Writing Vol 5(3) Sep 1993, 297-313. *de Winstanley, P. A., & Bjork, E. L. (2004). Processing strategies and the generation effect: Implications for making a better reader: Memory & Cognition Vol 32(6) Sep 2004, 945-955. *deWinstanley, P. A. (1995). A generation effect can be found during naturalistic learning: Psychonomic Bulletin & Review Vol 2(4) Dec 1995, 538-541. *deWinstanley, P. A., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (1996). Generation Effects and the Lack Thereof: The Role of Transfer-appropriate Processing: Memory Vol 4(1) Jan 1996, 31-48. *Engelkamp, J., & Zimmer, H. D. (1995). Similarity of movement in recognition of self-performed tasks and of verbal tasks: British Journal of Psychology Vol 86(2) May 1995, 241-252. *Fiedler, K., Lachnit, H., Fay, D., & Krug, C. (1992). Mobilization of cognitive resources and the generation effect: The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology Vol 45A(1) Jul 1992, 149-171. *Fiedler, K., Nickel, S., Asbeck, J., & Pagel, U. (2003). Mood and the generation effect: Cognition & Emotion Vol 17(4) Jul 2003, 585-608. *Foldi, N. S., Helm-Estabrooks, N., Redfield, J., & Nickel, D. G. (2003). Perseveration in normal aging: A comparison of perseveration rates on design fluency and verbal generative tasks: Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition Vol 10(4) Dec 2003, 268-280. *Foos, P. W., Mora, J. J., & Tkacz, S. (1994). Student study techniques and the generation effect: Journal of Educational Psychology Vol 86(4) Dec 1994, 567-576. *Gates, S. F. A. (1998). The influence of form priming and tasks on lexical access in the orthographic code. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering. *Geghman, K. D., & Multhaup, K. S. (2004). How generation affects source memory: Memory & Cognition Vol 32(5) Jul 2004, 819-823. *Grosofsky, A., Payne, D. G., & Campbell, K. D. (1994). Does the generation effect depend upon selective displaced rehearsal? : American Journal of Psychology Vol 107(1) Spr 1994, 53-68. *Halberstadt, N., & Kareev, Y. (1995). Transitions between modes of inquiry in a rule discovery task: The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology Vol 48A(2) May 1995, 280-295. *Harris-Collazo, M. R. (1996). An examination of the use of pre-target cues to generate an expectation and orient attention in closed head injured populations. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering. *Hendry, L., & Tehan, G. (2005). An item/order trade-off explanation of word length and generation effects: Memory Vol 13(3-4) Apr-May 2005, 364-371. *Hirshman, E., Passannante, A., & Arndt, J. (2001). Midazolam amnesia and conceptual processing in implicit memory: Journal of Experimental Psychology: General Vol 130(3) Sep 2001, 453-465. *Hooper, S., Sales, G., & Rysavy, S. D. M. (1994). Generating summaries and analogies alone and in pairs: Contemporary Educational Psychology Vol 19(1) Jan 1994, 53-62. *Hough, M. S., Pierce, R. S., Difilippo, M., & Pabst, M. J. (1997). Access and organization of goal-derived categories after traumatic brain injury: Brain Injury Vol 11(11) Nov 1997, 801-814. *Isingrini, M., Vazou, F., & Leroy, P. (1995). Dissociation of implicit and explicit memory tests: Effect of age and divided attention on category exemplar generation and cued recall: Memory & Cognition Vol 23(4) Jul 1995, 462-467. *Itsukushima, Y., Wada, M., & Suenaga, T. (1992). Self and memory: Network approach to self-generation effect: Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology Vol 32(2) Nov 1992, 160-170. *Itsukushima, Y., Wada, M., & Suenaga, T. (1995). Examinations of self-generation effect: An approach from the network theory of memory: Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology Vol 35(1) Jul 1995, 70-79. *Johnsey, A., Morrison, G. R., & Ross, S. M. (1992). Using elaboration strategies training in computer-based instruction to promote generative learning: Contemporary Educational Psychology Vol 17(2) Apr 1992, 125-135. *Jurica, P. J., & Shimamura, A. P. (1999). Monitoring item and source information: Evidence for a negative generation effect in source memory: Memory & Cognition Vol 27(4) Jul 1999, 648-656. *Kariyazono, A. (1994). Generation effects in problem-solving processes: Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology Vol 42(2) Jun 1994, 145-155. *Kelley, M. R., & Nairne, J. S. (2001). von Restorff revisited: Isolation, generation, and memory for order: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition Vol 27(1) Jan 2001, 54-66. *Kinjo, H., & Snodgrass, J. G. (2000). Does the generation effect occur for pictures? : American Journal of Psychology Vol 113(1) Spr 2000, 95-121. *Kleider, H. M., & Goldinger, S. D. (2006). The Generation and Resemblance Heuristics in Face Recognition: Cooperation and Competition: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition Vol 32(2) Mar 2006, 259-276. *Kornell, N., & Terrace, H. S. (2007). The generation effect in monkeys: Psychological Science Vol 18(8) Aug 2007, 682-685. *Landau, J. D., & Leynes, P. A. (2004). Manipulations that disrupt generative processes decrease conformity to examples: Evidence from two paradigms: Memory Vol 12(1) Jan 2004, 90-103. *Landau, J. D., & Marsh, R. L. (1997). Monitoring source in an unconscious plagiarism paradigm: Psychonomic Bulletin & Review Vol 4(2) Jun 1997, 265-270. *Langston, W. (1999). The generation effect: Software demonstrating the phenomenon: Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers Vol 31(1) Feb 1999, 81-85. *Lengenfelder, J., Chiaravalloti, N. D., & DeLuca, J. (2007). The efficacy of the generation effect in improving new learning in persons with traumatic brain injury: Rehabilitation Psychology Vol 52(3) Aug 2007, 290-296. *Light, L. L., Prull, M. W., & Kennison, R. F. (2000). Divided attention, aging, and priming in exemplar generation and category verification: Memory & Cognition Vol 28(5) Jul 2000, 856-872. *Linna, D. E., & Gulgoz, S. (1994). Effect of random response generation on cryptomnesia: Psychological Reports Vol 74(2) Apr 1994, 387-392. *Lohaus, D., & Lachnit, H. (2001). Generation effects with pictorial material: Psychologische Beitrage Vol 43(5) 2001, 787-802. *Long, D. L., Golding, J. M., & Graesser, A. C. (1992). A test of the on-line status of goal-related inferences: Journal of Memory and Language Vol 31(5) Oct 1992, 634-647. *Lutz, J., Briggs, A., & Cain, K. (2003). An examination of the value of the generation effect for learning new material: Journal of General Psychology Vol 130(2) Apr 2003, 171-188. *MacLeod, C. M., & Daniels, K. A. (2000). Direct versus indirect tests of memory: Directed forgetting meets the generation effect: Psychonomic Bulletin & Review Vol 7(2) Jun 2000, 354-359. *Maki, P. M., Zonderman, A. B., & Weingartner, H. (1999). Age differences in implicit memory: Fragmented object identification and category exemplar generation: Psychology and Aging Vol 14(2) Jun 1999, 284-294. *Marsh, E. J. (2006). When Does Generation Enhance Memory for Location? : Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition Vol 32(5) Sep 2006, 1216-1220. *Marsh, E. J., Edelman, G., & Bower, G. H. (2001). Demonstrations of a generation effect in context memory: Memory & Cognition Vol 29(6) Sep 2001, 798-805. *Mazzoni, G., & Vannucci, M. (1998). Recall or knowledge: When memory errors are considered true recall: Giornale Italiano di Psicologia Vol 25(1) Mar 1998, 79-99. *McClelland, A. G., & Pring, L. (1991). An investigation of cross-modality effects in implicit and explicit memory: The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology Vol 43A(1) Feb 1991, 19-33. *McNamara, D. S., & Healy, A. F. (1995). A generation advantage for multiplication skill training and nonword vocabulary acquisition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. *McNamara, D. S., & Healy, A. F. (1995). A procedural explanation of the generation effect: The use of an operand retrieval strategy for multiplication and addition problems: Journal of Memory and Language Vol 34(3) Jun 1995, 399-416. *McNamara, D. S., & Healy, A. F. (2000). A procedural explanation of the generation effect for simple and difficult multiplication problems and answers: Journal of Memory and Language Vol 43(4) Nov 2000, 652-679. *Metcalfe, J., & Kornell, N. (2007). Principles of cognitive science in education: The effects of generation, errors, and feedback: Psychonomic Bulletin & Review Vol 14(2) Apr 2007, 225-229. *Miller, R. L., & Wozniak, W. (2001). Counter-attitudinal advocacy: Effort vs. self-generation of arguments: Current Research in Social Psychology 6(4) Feb 2001, 46-55. *Moser, D. V. (1992). Does memory affect judgment? Self-generated versus recall memory measures: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Vol 62(4) Apr 1992, 555-563. *Muller, R.-A., Rothermel, R. D., Behen, M. E., Muzik, O., Mangner, T. J., & Chugani, H. T. (1997). Receptive and expressive language activations for sentences: A PET study: Neuroreport: An International Journal for the Rapid Communication of Research in Neuroscience Vol 8(17) Dec 1997, 3767-3770. *Mulligan, N. W. (2001). Generation and hypermnesia: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition Vol 27(2) Mar 2001, 436-450. *Mulligan, N. W. (2002). The effects of generation on conceptual implicit memory: Journal of Memory and Language Vol 47(2) Aug 2002, 327-342. *Mulligan, N. W. (2002). The emergent generation effect and hypermnesia: Influences of semantic and nonsemantic generation tasks: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition Vol 28(3) May 2002, 541-554. *Mulligan, N. W. (2004). Generation and Memory for Contextual Detail: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition Vol 30(4) Jul 2004, 838-855. *Mulligan, N. W., & Duke, M. D. (2002). Positive and negative generation effects, hypermnesia, and total recall time: Memory & Cognition Vol 30(7) Oct 2002, 1044-1053. *Mulligan, N. W., & Lozito, J. P. (2004). Self-generation and memory. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. *Mulligan, N. W., Lozito, J. P., & Rosner, Z. A. (2006). Generation and Context Memory: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition Vol 32(4) Jul 2006, 836-846. *Multhaup, K. S., & Balota, D. A. (1997). Generation effects and source memory in healthy older adults and in adults with dementia of the Alzheimer type: Neuropsychology Vol 11(3) Jul 1997, 382-391. *Nahinsky, I. D., Lucas, B. A., Edgell, S. E., Overfelt, J., & Loeb, R. (2004). How learning one category influences the learning of another: Intercategory generalization based on analogy and specific stimulus information: American Journal of Psychology Vol 117(3) Fal 2004, 317-340. *Nicolas, S. (1998). The effect of intentional learning on implicit memory and explicit memory: Psychologie Francaise Vol 43(1) Mar 1998, 89-96. *Nicolas, S., Ehrlich, M.-F., & Facci, G. (1996). Implicit memory and aging: Generation effect in a word-stem completion test: Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive/Current Psychology of Cognition Vol 15(5) Oct 1996, 513-533. *Nicolas, S., & Tardieu, H. (1996). The generation effect in a word-stem completion task: The influence of conceptual processes: European Journal of Cognitive Psychology Vol 8(4) Dec 1996, 405-424. *Nijstad, B. A., Stroebe, W., & Lodewijkx, H. F. M. (2002). Cognitive stimulation and interference in groups: Exposure effects in an idea generation task: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology Vol 38(6) Nov 2002, 535-544. *O'Brien, A., Chiaravalloti, N., Arango-Lasprilla, J. C., Lengenfelder, J., & DeLuca, J. (2007). An investigation of the differential effect of self-generation to improve learning and memory in multiple sclerosis and traumatic brain injury: Neuropsychological Rehabilitation Vol 17(3) Jun 2007, 273-292. *Okada, K. (1998). Examination of relation among the generation effect, the level-of-processing effect, and the modality effect in explicit memory tasks: Japanese Journal of Psychology Vol 69(1) Apr 1998, 1-8. *Olofsson, U., & Nilsson, L.-G. (1992). The generation effect in primed word-fragment completion reexamined: Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung Vol 54(2) Jun 1992, 103-109. *O'Neill, W., Roy, L., & Tremblay, R. (1993). A translation-based generation effect in bilingual recall and recognition: Memory & Cognition Vol 21(4) Jul 1993, 488-495. *Pesta, B. J., Sanders, R. E., & Murphy, M. D. (1999). A beautiful day in the neighborhood: What factors determine the generation effect for simple multiplication problems? : Memory & Cognition Vol 27(1) Jan 1999, 106-115. *Pesta, B. J., Sanders, R. E., & Nemec, R. J. (1996). Older adults' strategic superiority with mental multiplication: A generation effect assessment: Experimental Aging Research Vol 22(2) Apr-Jun 1996, 155-169. *Peynircioglu, Z. F., & Mungan, E. (1993). Familiarity, relative distinctiveness, and the generation effect: Memory & Cognition Vol 21(3) May 1993, 367-374. *Pring, L., Freestone, S. E., & Katan, S. A. (1990). Recalling pictures and words: Reversing the generation effect: Current Psychology: Research & Reviews Vol 9(1) Spr 1990, 35-45. *Pring, L., & Mulkern, K. (1992). Memory in blind and sighted children: European Review of Applied Psychology/Revue Europeenne de Psychologie Appliquee Vol 42(3) 1992, 243-250. *Reardon, R., & Moore, D. J. (1996). The greater memorability of self-generated versus externally presented product information: Psychology & Marketing Vol 13(3) May 1996, 305-320. *Rich, J. B., Troyer, A. K., Bylsma, F. W., & Brandt, J. (1999). Longitudinal analysis of phonemic clustering and switching during word-list generation in Huntington's disease: Neuropsychology Vol 13(4) Oct 1999, 525-531. *Riefer, D. M., Chien, Y., & Reimer, J. F. (2007). Positive and negative generation effects in source monitoring: The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Vol 60(10) Oct 2007, 1389-1405. *Riefer, D. M., Hu, X., & Batchelder, W. H. (1994). Response strategies in source monitoring: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition Vol 20(3) May 1994, 680-693. *Robert, P. H., Migneco, V., Marmod, D., Chaix, I., Thauby, S., Benoit, M., et al. (1997). Verbal fluency in schizophrenia: The role of semantic clustering in category instance generation: European Psychiatry Vol 12(3) 1997, 124-129. *Roth, W.-M. (2007). Emotion at work: A contribution to third-generation cultural-historical activity theory: Mind, Culture, and Activity Vol 14(1-2) 2007, 40-63. *Rybash, J. M., & Hrubi-Bopp, K. L. (2000). Source monitoring and false recollection: A life span developmental perspective: Experimental Aging Research Vol 26(1) Jan-Mar 2000, 75-87. *Schmidt, S. R. (1992). Evaluating the role of distinctiveness in the generation effect: The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology Vol 44A(2) Feb 1992, 237-260. *Schweickert, R., McDaniel, M. A., & Riegler, G. (1994). Effects of generation on immediate memory span and delayed unexpected free recall: The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology Vol 47A(3) Aug 1994, 781-804. *Seger, C. A., Rabin, L. A., Desmond, J. E., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (1999). Verb generation priming involves conceptual implicit memory: Brain and Cognition Vol 41(2) Nov 1999, 150-177. *Sengupta, J., & Gorn, G. J. (2002). Absence makes the mind grow sharper: Effects of element omission on subsequent recall: Journal of Marketing Research Vol 39(2) May 2002, 186-201. *Serra, M., & Nairne, J. S. (1993). Design controversies and the generation effect: Support for an item-order hypothesis: Memory & Cognition Vol 21(1) Jan 1993, 34-40. *Sloman, S. A. (1991). Part-set cuing inhibition in category-instance and reason generation: Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society Vol 29(2) Mar 1991, 136-138. *Smith, M. L. (1996). Recall of frequency of occurrence of self-generated and examiner-provided words after frontal or temporal lobectomy: Neuropsychologia Vol 34(6) Jun 1996, 553-563. *Smith, R. W., & Healy, A. F. (1998). The time-course of the generation effect: Memory & Cognition Vol 26(1) Jan 1998, 135-142. *Soraci, S. A., Carlin, M. T., Chechile, R. A., Franks, J. J., Wills, T., & Watanabe, T. (1999). Encoding variability and cuing in generative processing: Journal of Memory and Language Vol 41(4) Nov 1999, 541-559. *Soraci, S. A., Franks, J. J., Bransford, J. D., Chechile, R. A., Belli, R. F., Carr, M., et al. (1994). Incongruous item generation effects: A multiple-cue perspective: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition Vol 20(1) Jan 1994, 67-78. *Souliez, L., Pasquier, F., Lebert, F., Leconte, P., & Petit, H. (1996). Generation effect in short-term verbal and visuospatial memory: Comparisons between dementia of frontal lobe type: Cortex Vol 32(2) Jun 1996, 347-356. *Steffens, M. C., & Erdfelder, E. (1998). Determinants of positive and negative generation effects in free recall: The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology Vol 51A(4) Nov 1998, 705-733. *Taconnat, L. (2005). Contribution of word generation paradigm to the study of dissociation between memory measures: L'annee Psychologique Vol 105(3) Jul 2005, 521-537. *Taconnat, L., Froger, C., Sacher, M., & Isingrini, M. (2008). Generation and associative encoding in young and old adults: The effect of the strength of association between cues and targets on a cued recall task: Experimental Psychology Vol 55(1) 2008, 23-30. *Taconnat, L., & Isingrini, M. (2004). Cognitive Operations in the Generation Effect on a Recall Test: Role of Aging and Divided Attention: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition Vol 30(4) Jul 2004, 827-837. *Taconnat, L., Isingrini, M., & Vanneste, S. (2003). Aging and generation effect: Specific and relational semantic processes in the generation effect: L'annee Psychologique Vol 103(2) Apr-Jun 2003, 199-221. *Takahashi, M., & Umemoto, T. (1990). The generation effect of domain-related sentence memory in relation to high and low domain knowledge individuals: The effects of sentence-reconstruction on recall and recognition: Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology Vol 38(2) Jun 1990, 157-165. *Toth, J. P., & Hunt, R. R. (1990). Effect of generation on a word-identification task: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition Vol 16(6) Nov 1990, 993-1003. *Towse, J. N., & McLachlan, A. (1999). An exploration of random generation among children: British Journal of Developmental Psychology Vol 17(3) Sep 1999, 363-380. *Toyota, H. (1990). Effects of elaboration on retrieval of words in incidental memory: Japanese Journal of Psychology Vol 61(2) Jun 1990, 119-122. *Ventura, P., Morais, J., Brito-Mendes, C., & Kolinsky, R. (2005). The mental representation of living and nonliving things: Differential weighting and interactivity of sensorial and non-sensorial features: Memory Vol 13(2) 2005, 124-147. *Weldon, M. S., & Colston, H. L. (1995). Dissociating the generation stage in implicit and explicit memory tests: Incidental production can differ from strategic access: Psychonomic Bulletin & Review Vol 2(3) Sep 1995, 381-386. *Wolters, N. C. W. (1993). The generation effect with general knowledge: A test of the lexical activation hypothesis: Dissertation Abstracts International. *Yong, W., Mouchao, M., Li, L., & Xiaqi, D. (2003). Memory effect of banner web - ad: Acta Psychologica Sinica Vol 35(6) 2003, 830-834. *Zhang, L., & Zhu, Y. (1998). The generation and retaining of relatedness effect in memory illusion: Acta Psychologica Sinica Vol 30(4) 1998, 374-380. External links * http://iddeas.psych.ucla.edu Category:Cognitive biases Category:Educational psychology Category:Learning Category:Memory biases Category:Psychological theories